Re: A quick question on human evolutionary history...


floyda@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
jgrisham@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:
Nickhotep <Nickhotep@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It came up in conversation earlier today, and since I've been lurking
for a little while, I figured I might as well ask this forum as a way
to introduce myself.

Anyway, someone told me recently that Homo Sapiens Sapiens might have
actually evolved from both the neanderthal and the cro magnon, breeding
together. This statement is, I suspect, a badly mangled restatement of
a new theory, as it was (quote) "Something I heard on CNN a month ago"
and I was just wondering if there was any truth to it.

As for myself, I find this place endlessly entertaining. As far as I
can tell, the general practice is: "A creationist/IDer comes along,
says something nuts, is dogpiled." Wax, rinse, repeat.
Hilarious and educational at the same time.

I'm not at all well versed in the subject, and other than reading a
few Dawkins books here and there I know almost nothing about it, but I
find it pretty interesting. This eventually led me here.

First off, the taxonomic name _Homo sapiens sapiens_ is not used much
these days - it assumes that there is a subspecies of _Homo sapiens_
sometimes called "modern man" in the older literature, which is distinct
from older Hs types. This is pretty well abandoned, and there was always
a whiff of European superiority in it.

Oh, I beg to differ! It has nothing to do with European snobbery.


Yes, actually, it does. The name "_Homo sapiens sapiens_" was coined
by people who suspected that neandertals were members of our own
species, and that modern Europeans were the descendants of
hybridisation between neandertals and "Cro-Magnon" people.

Hogwash!

Were none of you people alive in the 1990's when this story hit the
covers of Newsweek, Time and every newspaper on the planet? "Homo
Sapiens Extinct!". It's maddening that people claiming to be the
rational ones can condone burying the facts and creating B.S. excuses.
They got it wrong! They made assumptions that proved incorrect and
instead of putting it right, they bury it.

Furthermore, of all the homonids, we are the least sapien. The whole
"homo sapien" name has more to do with Tarzan than science. Darwinists
wanted ape men and popular 19th century culture invented Tarzan, then
science discovered Homo Robustus, Homo Erectus and cast of other
hominids more closely related to apes... but don't you dare call them
sapiens. So, in the 1990's when it was discovered that homo sapiens
were extinct, what did science do?... It added another sapien to our
name. We're the least sapien of the homonids and yet we have it twice
in our name. Go ahead! Tell me that's a rational decision!




Science was so embarrassed


Science is a process, not a person; it has no emotions and therefore
can not feel embarassment.

Science is a consensus of opinion, born of a process. That's like
saying Conservatives and Liberals are not persons, there's no emotion,
no embarrassment... every activity of human enterprise is connected to
our emotions.

that it didn't even know what species, we
are,


Species names are arbitrary labels. Our ideas about the relationships
between ourselves and the other hominids have changed as we have
learned more. When we realised that neandertals were a distinct
species (about 9 years ago, when Krings et al.'s article in Cell
hammered the last nail in the coffin of multiregionalism), we realised
that the additional sub-specific name was unnecessary.


they just tacked on an additional sapien when they discovered homo
sapiens were extinct.


Um... no we aren't.

So, you maintain that some muddleheaded Europeans have screwed with
science and arbitrarily invented homo sapien sapiens, in spite of what
was published in every newspaper and magazine on the planet in the
1990's and the rest of the scientific community let them get away with
it because (I'm at a loss here... you have no rational reason for your
phony excuse)?


(I'm still pissed... we should have gotten a new
name, a better name... we should have gotten a vote, anyway! How often
does the opportunity arise when you have to rename your own specie?)



"Specie" means "coin of a low denomination. You may call it a "penny"
or a "cent," or even "one one-hundredth of a dollar" if you wish.



If you're so hot to be a homo sapien, you should have brain surgery to
cut away 150cc to participate fully in the experience.


You do know what is meant by the word "average" don't you? The
"average" American has one testicle, for example. Add up all the
people who have none (women) and all the people who have two, men, and
divide the total number of testicles by the total number of Americans.
If you are still confused about what is meant by the term "average",
but you really want to express your patriotism, I can loan you a pair
of garden shears.

Ouch! Very funny.



Quote_____
http://www.human-evolution.org/historyfossil.php

Homo sapiens (archaic) provides the bridge between erectus and Homo
sapiens sapiens during the period 200,000 to 500,000 years ago. Many
skulls have been found with features intermediate between the two.
Brain averaged about 1200cc and speech was indicated. Skulls are more
rounded and with smaller features. Molars and brow ridges are smaller.
The skeleton shows a stronger build than modern human but was well
proportioned.

Homo sapiens sapiens first appeared about 120,000 years ago. Modern
humans have an average brain size of about 1350 cc.
End Quote____


That site is speculative fiction. It's interesting, but it is not a
reliable academic source. Their main goal is to speculate where human
evolution is heading; their description of where it has been is
necessarily simplified. Your misunderstanding of their coarse overview
exacerbates the problem. What they said was technically accurate, but
not particularly precise, and you appear to have misunderstood even
that simplified "cliffs notes" version.

What is it about "Homo sapiens (archaic) provides the bridge between
erectus and Homo sapiens sapiens" that I misunderstood? As for it being
speculative fiction, isn't that the Creationists argument concerning
the whole of evolution?

If you have questions about human evolution, I'll be happy to try to
answer them, but that website is not a good resource for technical
details.

I'm not surprised that the consensus of scientific opinion disagrees
with what every magazine and newspaper exposed in the 1990's.
Republicans still think Nixon was innocent. Business still thinks Enron
was ethical. Denial is par for the course.


JTG 6/21/06

.

Relevant Pages

  • How Cynicism Will Save Us From A Date With Extinction
    ... I find lowering the bar on my fellow sapiens cathartic. ... Ninety-nine percent of our evolution as a social species has taken ... mouths we cease to be truly social animals and cynicism begins its ... selection was so hesitant in committing Homo sapiens to the big brain, ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: Taxonomic classiification.
    ... group of very closely related species. ... Subspecies: sapiens ... We, Homo sapiens sapiens, share the Species: ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: A quick question on human evolutionary history...
    ... someone told me recently that Homo Sapiens Sapiens might have ... Brain averaged about 1200cc and speech was indicated. ... The skeleton shows a stronger build than modern human but was well ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Full auto, belt fed 12 ga
    ... and reefs), and I think it would be taxonomically correct to classify him as Homo sapiens (we always capitalize the genus, and the species is sapiens, with two s). ... Sorry for my lack of capitalisation but if the species is Homo sapeins isn't an individual a Homo sapien? ...
    (rec.scuba)
  • Re: Full auto, belt fed 12 ga
    ... , and I think it would be taxonomically correct to classify him as Homo sapiens (we always capitalize the genus, and the species is sapiens, with two s). ... Sorry for my lack of capitalisation but if the species is Homo sapeins isn't an individual a Homo sapien? ...
    (rec.scuba)
Loading